Co-leadership works when both partners draw clear lines between their roles, agree on decision rules and commit to one shared direction. That common ground is the foundation of shared leadership at the top. Without it, two strong people end up working side by side, or against each other.
The days of the lone hero at the top of companies, business units and departments are fading. In companies, associations and political parties, two people increasingly share the highest decision-making authority on formally equal terms. In start-ups growing into SMEs, a management board of several people is often a given, even if hardly anyone outside notices.
Co-leadership means that two formally equal people lead an organisational unit together and share responsibility and decision-making authority. In German-speaking countries the arrangement is called a “Doppelspitze”, and job sharing at the top also goes by the name top sharing. Craig Pearce and Jay Conger collected the research on shared leadership in their 2003 volume Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership.
The reason lies in the work itself. Topics at the top are varied, questions are complex and the number of decisions keeps growing. So it’s often wiser to organise as a team than to rely on the charisma of a single person at the top.
Splitting leadership this way brings potential and challenges. Which of the two wins out depends on how deliberately the partners shape their collaboration.
One coaching assignment made the core of the problem visible. It was about accompanying a leader into the executive board, and along the way it became clear that leadership would be shared between two top candidates.
In day-to-day leadership, a tandem like this decides many things together. Even so, many duos spend too little time on how they actually want to work together. Each partner then guards their own area and watches like a hawk that the other doesn’t cross the line.
If everything just gets managed away, the opportunities that two different minds at the top offer stay unused. Precise methods and detailed planning won’t help much here, because reality rarely sticks to the plan.
Shared responsibility starts with a clear sense of your own role. Ask yourself how you and your partner complement each other strategically: Who brings which strengths, and who represents the duo externally on which topics?
Stating expectations early and checking them regularly prevents conflict and builds trust. A leadership duo with role clarity works more effectively, and more profitably too.
Role clarity leads to four concrete agreements, ideally before you start or within the first few weeks at the latest.
First, the split: Which areas does each of you own alone, and where do you need both?
Second, the decision rules: Which decisions do you only make together, and what happens if you can’t agree? Setting such a rule before the first dispute is far easier than in the middle of one.
Third, handling conflict: How do you raise differences before they harden, and where do you have it out? Towards the team, the duo should speak with one voice, even after a tough internal debate.
Fourth, the shared direction: Which vision are you pursuing, and how will you measure success together? That direction becomes the yardstick for every individual decision.
In my observation, leaders who’ve deliberately chosen to form a leadership team and share one direction are more successful and calmer. The workload gets spread, and the pressure of sole responsibility that a top position brings goes down.
Decisions get easier when they follow a shared vision. A single leader only knows their own perspective. In dialogue, several arguments come to the table, and the result is better thought through.
A duo or leadership team in which each person fully lives their role and knows their impact gains security and a strong reputation. Such teams tend to be more satisfied personally, too. How individuals turn into a leadership team is the subject of Team collaboration: How individuals become a leadership team.
When a co-leadership arrangement runs into trouble, what’s usually missing, in my observation, is the time both partners have put into working together. What matters in this collaboration and in the organisation can be clarified, and early.
My caveat: Clear rules can’t replace a relationship. Two people who fundamentally distrust each other won’t get far, even with the best role clarity.
And one doubt remains. Co-leadership set up mainly to avoid a personnel decision rarely lasts. It pays off where both roles cover different strengths.
Two formally equal people lead a company, a division or a department together and share responsibility and decision-making authority. It’s also known as top sharing or, in German-speaking countries, a Doppelspitze.
By stating expectations early and checking them regularly. An agreed rule for when the two can’t agree helps. Towards the team, the duo speaks with one voice.
A leadership circle consists of managers who mainly represent their own areas. A leadership team bases its decisions on a shared vision and makes deliberate use of its members’ differences.
When topics are complex and the volume of decisions becomes too much for one person. It needs two personalities who complement each other strategically and are willing to invest time in working together.
Further reading on hofmann.coach: Conflict management: What leads to a constructive conflict culture · C-level success needs alignment · Top management team: How to make excellence visible · Solution-focused culture: How leaders move conflict forward
Note: This article was first published on 05.07.2023 and was revised and expanded in October 2026.
Cristian Hofmann is an executive coach in Zurich and Schaffhausen (MAS Coaching & Supervision BSO, Forbes contributor). Over more than 20 years he has coached more than 1,500 leaders: CEOs, executive boards and leadership teams in Switzerland, with measurably agreed goals and, on request, pay-for-results. More about Cristian Hofmann.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more
